While the strategies it suggests are "too late" for the posters in this thread and likely "too late" for Crown Heights as a whole, the strategies are used (and fought by opposing forces) across the country.

Honorary degrees in Urban Planning and Real Estate will be bestowed later.

You are free to read it that way. I viewed it as expressing a sense of loss, because "her" Brooklyn is no longer what it was.

It now exists only in her memory, because everything and everyone who used to live here is gone.

I experienced a similar feeling when I went back for a college reunion: The campus had been massively renovated and redesigned, the students didn't look or even think the way I did. ...It was no longer the place it was, and it was never going to be so again.

Yet, someone from development had the nerve to ask me if I wanted to donate.

You are free to read it that way. I viewed it as expressing a sense of loss, because "her" Brooklyn is no longer what it was.

It now exists only in her memory, because everything and everyone who used to live here is gone.

I experienced a similar feeling when I went back for a college reunion: The campus had been massively renovated and redesigned, the students didn't look or even think the way I did. ...It was no longer the place it was, and it was never going to be so again.

Yet, someone from development had the nerve to ask me if I wanted to donate.

As I've written before, ownership of a neighborhood in NYC is largely illusionary. The sense of common purpose, thoughts and identity tends to hold only until it is challenged. Then, people seem to either blame the challenger (buyer?) or the challenged (seller?).

However, because there was never an explicit agreement as to purpose and identity, such blame is a losing proposition.

The college experience is more honest. By seeing people graduate, you know that unless you carve your name in the newly poured the sidewalk in the quad, none of the future students will ever know your were ever there.

I viewed it as expressing a sense of loss, because "her" Brooklyn is no longer what it was.

It now exists only in her memory, because everything and everyone who used to live here is gone.

Exactly, whynot! It's not talked about as often but some longtime residents aren't pushed out or priced out or motivated mainly by cashing out. Sometimes they leave because they feel left out of a place that has become unfamiliar right before their very eyes.

Exactly, whynot! It's not talked about as often but some longtime residents aren't pushed out or priced out or motivated mainly by cashing out. Sometimes they leave because they feel left out of a place that has become unfamiliar right before their very eyes.

I think it is talked about more than we realize, but --because the discussions do not occur in "mixed company" or in front of large audiences-- we are just not there to hear it.

In "polite society", we are afraid to state in public how much we prefer to be around people and businesses familar to ourselves. I think this hesitance stems from not wanting to offend and/or endure the tired accusations that inevitably follow.

Humans are rarely as simple as public discourse describes them, and I find it sad that people don't seem to grasp the complexities of preferences, and don't realize that everyone has them to some degree. Some people seem to condemn others for having any preferences at all.

Money is a classic example. It is a thing that most people like, and people like to condemn people for liking.

While few leave "lots of money" on the table when it is offered, when one moves, money alone can't buy everything that people (including the writer of the Ebony article) seem to value.

As you allude, statements such as "well, you got lots of money for cashing out", and "you are just bitter because you couldn't buy/rent there at the new rates" don't tell the whole story.

Whether they want to or not, some people become attached to the full array of factors that make up their surroundings.

In the case of Western Brooklyn, things they thought would never change, quickly have changed. Their sense of permanence and consistency is lost.

An additional thing that isn't talked about very often, is that this sense of anomie/alienation is compounded when those leaving realize that those "creating the change" openly state they don't necessarily have long term plans for the neighborhoods in Brooklyn: "I might stay, I might not. It depends."

In otherwords, the person leaving does not end up feeling that the sense of permanence and ownership they perceived is valued or even sought by those who are following them.

Those leaving seem to believe the newcomers should want to stay in Brooklyn forever, as they did. However, those arriving have far more opportunities and power than those who are leaving. As a result, they see western Brooklyn as a good place to live for a while: While they explore their options and become who they are going to be.

...A few of the newcomers might carve their name in the freshly poured concrete in front of the new condo, but as not many as those leaving would like.

It would be difficult to measure, but (as you point out) some newcomers might even struggle with the change MORE than those who are leaving.

The newbies seem to struggle with the fact that they are a part of the larger environment (be it the world or the neighborhood), whether they like it or not. Like the author, some take conscious steps to NOT express preferences and tell others about them.

However, faceless entities like "the business community" expect that they (as a group) will -in fact- express their preferences, as they have in every other neighborhood in which they have arrived.

Such generalizations offend and trouble this subset of newcomers; They want to think that they are different.

They want to be treated differently, because they believe they treat others differently.

As a result of inheriting the world in its present condition, they want to believe that the groups that they are a part of (perhaps their "generation") are different than those who came before them. That they are not repeating the "mistakes" of the past.

Slowly, over time, most come to terms with how much of life they can change. They reach an understanding of the power they possess, which includes what is possible in the present environment and what is not.

As a result of this process, some even forgive the prior generations for sins and "mistakes" they have perceived them of committing.

They slowly comes to terms with who they are, and to what degree others are like and unlike them. Slowly, they create a less rigid, less idealistic definition of what is "fair".

They realize that life is not as simplistic as what they may have been taught or concluded: It can not be simply defined and understood in terms of racism, classism, oppression and privilege.

At times it is painful to watch. At times it is humorous. Regardless, they have to go through it for themselves. Because if folks who have already been through it try to tell them not to go thru it [or to go about it in a different manner, or that they won't be successful] they (we?) will be told that they (we?) are jaded cynics, and sell outs who have become part of the machine that they believe is evil.

Our efforts may even make them respond by trying harder, which will just increase the pain.

I post it because page 2 clearly shows the disparity in rental income a landlord receives for the different units. All of the apartments started out as rent stabilized, but thru the processes we describe above, many are not.

As part of considering how much to bid for building, the buyer "bets" or "estimates" how easy it will be to convert the remaining units to market rate. The processes used are documented through out this thread....

Today, it was announced that NYS is investigating a landlord with a property in Crown Heights for violating the rent stabilization rules:

A preliminary audit of agency records showed that Wasserman frequently registered rents as $2,500, regardless of what the rents had been before, to allow the landlord to claim the units were no longer rent regulated, according to a press release sent out by the governor. The audit also showed that Wasserman may have deregulated apartments while simultaneously receiving a J-51 tax abatement, “which mandates that apartments remain rent-regulated,” said the statement.

Usually, a tenant who is being overcharged must take legal action against their landlord. As discussed above, this takes place pretty rarely in "changing areas" because the tenants are willing (and able) to pay the rate.

The new state agency enforces the law on its own, without a complaint being filed by a tenant. This may cause LLs to be a little less blatant about breaking the rules.

922 Prospect Place: Crown Heights – 4-story 9,000 SF property that consists of 8 two-bedroom apartments, out of which 5 are rent stabilized and 3 are free market. Rents for the building are significantly below market with the current income at only $130,812/annually

Today, I quote:

TerraCRG has been retained to sell the multifamily building located at 922 Prospect Place. The ~9,000 SF property is situated between New York Avenue and Brooklyn Avenue in Crown Heights. The four story property consists of eight 2 bedroom apartments, out of which Seven may be delivered vacant. There is significant upside with rents in the area ranging between $30/SF to $40/SF, or $2,500/month to $3,300/month for a two bedroom. Crown Heights has seen tremendous transformation over the last decade with many condo developments, strong retail, and a robust brownstone sales market. In just a few years, rents have risen from $20/SF to $40/SF, and are poised to reach $45/SF and above within the next two years. As a result, Nostrand Avenue, just a block away, is now seeing a strong retail market with the addition of new restaurants and boutiques servicing the new demographic. Setup and Pricing: http://www.terracrg.com/setups/922_Prospect_Place.pdf

In other words, in the past four months, seven of the eight apartments have been vacated.Buyouts have likely occurred, and/or the apartments are not covered under rent stabilization, because receipts for improvements were submitted to HCR.Needless to say, the seller is now far more likely to obtain their asking price $3M. ...and that, my friends, is how the market works.

I don't even know why the phrase "rent_control" is even embedded in the URL for that Gothamist post. The story is clearly about rent stabilization. People often seem to conflate the two, which hinders the conversation about whether rent regulation is still needed or whether it's justifiable.

What is the incentive for landlords to charge the preferential rent and not the legal rent? We've had various amounts of work done in our building (upgrading the electrical, new floor tiles, new light fixtures, paint job) and although our landlord is great, I can't imagine he's spending all this money on upgrades to just "be a nice guy."

The LL is able to document these upgrades/expenses with HCR in order to increase the Legal Rent s/he can charge. Eventually, this Legal Rent will exceed the $2500 rent stabilization limit, and the apartments will be free market.

In the interim, it makes sense for s/he to charge you a Preferential Rent because you (and your neighbors) are a steady stream of income.

The LL is basically foregoing some of the rent increases they could implement, in exchange for not having to fill apartments that may become vacant as a result of rent increases.

In the future, the LL can either increase the rents all at once, or sell the building to someone who will.

Yes, as alluded to above, buildings with rent stabilized apartments in them are being purchased for so much money that the new owners have to get rid of long term tenants in order to make any money.

The new owners are willing to pay this much because they are confident that the city will not enforce the existing regulations, and/or that they will be able to get the apartments out of rent stabilization via methods that are legal. Both varieties of "methods" are discussed above.

There are not many moderates in the field of tenant advocacy. For example, the group discussed in this article would like tenants to have rights that are not presently established:

When some of my tenants call me when they hear one mouse scratching in the wall or if the bathroom sink gets clogged with their hair. I pull out the hair and show it to them; and pay the exterminater $175 to bait this one mouse and he tells them to put down a glue trap. Then, when the lease is up am I not to raise the rent?

Where there is one mouse there mostly likely several more. If all your exterminator is doing is putting down glue traps then you need a new one. A good exterminator goes around finds where the mice are getting in and either tells you about them or seals them.

Yes you have bad tenants. It's part of the business. Neither of these is the real reason landlords are raising rents and pricing GOOD tenants out! Their doing it because they can and want to make more money. That too is part of the business. I've come to accept it but you should at least of the decency to be honest about it. Your not raising rents to punish your tenants but cause you can!

The first is that price for a given unit is naturally the intersection of demand and supply, and government has been ineffective at changing this:

The second is to understand the ways in which gov tries to change nature, in the pursuit of providing tenants some modicum of rights. I really wish government was more effective at achieving some of these things than it is:

including tenants’ names and addresses, in bulk electronic form by a computer-to-computer transfer.

in March2012, the oca announced that it will no longer include the names of tenants involved in New York

city Housing court eviction proceedings in the electronic data feed it sells to tenant screening companies.

the oca’s decision to omit this information from the electronic data feed is a victory for tenants

because it will now be much harder for

landlords to engage in blacklisting.

this development does not, however,mean that blacklisting is over. the oca continues to provide a daily electronic feed of all new cases and updates on pending ones. although the feed will not contain the tenants’

names, it is not difficult to match an index number to the tenant’s name through the court’s public access computer. Until the oca stops providing the electronic feed to the data companies, tenant blacklisitng will continue.

This broker markets investment properties. He is wise enough to not provide the exact addresses, but by reading through it, you could reach the conclusion that the building you presently rent in is very likely to change hands:

Where there is one mouse there mostly likely several more. If all your exterminator is doing is putting down glue traps then you need a new one. A good exterminator goes around finds where the mice are getting in and either tells you about them or seals them.

Yes you have bad tenants. It's part of the business. Neither of these is the real reason landlords are raising rents and pricing GOOD tenants out! Their doing it because they can and want to make more money. That too is part of the business. I've come to accept it but you should at least of the decency to be honest about it. Your not raising rents to punish your tenants but cause you can!

I didn't mean to quote it all but, Gee, Newguy are you irritable,? Life is too short to spend it punishing tenants. I am just saying, if your going to be a prima donna tenant you have to cover the costs. If houses were not an investment no one would buy them or rent space to others.

I've seen a lot of long term tenants take really low buyout offers, because it was the most money they ever saw at one time in their life.

If they haven't received an offer yet, it is very likely they will in the future. This article tells the story of how many people have moved into to Brooklyn, versus how many new units have been constructed:

Funny, I know quite a few landlords who would be happy to get $1600 or so for a two bedroom in Lefferts Gardens or Crown Heights because they're getting a lot less than that now. Sometimes you have to look in the smaller buildings (2-4 family) because those landlords usually live on the premises and are willing to take a little less for someone who's stable.

I have a few friends who live in small buildings and receive below market rent.

Some do this in exchange for maintaining their own apartments (painting, appliances, etc) but others have landlords that just don't want to go thru the turnover that happens when market rate is charged.

Prior to age 30, I think it is hard to find such deals because you are regarded as a potentially noisy tenant with poor painting skills.

@pratmaticguy send those landlords here when they are looking for new tenants. I've been in a two bedroom in Crown Heights for over 5 years now and even when I first moved my rent was above $1600! I'm currently concerned that my lease will not be renewed so the landlord can raise the rent even higher for new tenants. I'll accept a reasonable ($50) or even semi-unreasonable ($200) hike in rent, but I'm expecting the worst with all the changes going on here these days.

Actually I have told them to post here. They are currently fixing apartments in a building a Bedford south of Empire and I have given them the website and hopefully they will post on here and save the trouble of dealing with an agent.

I already tell everyone about the site. They also have two buildings on St. Johns off of Nostrand. There are some vacancies there too. Hopefully they'll be listed on here soon. I've even offered to do it for them. They're good clients of mine so maybe they'll listen to me.

Actually I have told them to post here. They are currently fixing apartments in a building a Bedford south of Empire and I have given them the website and hopefully they will post on here and save the trouble of dealing with an agent.

I think I know which building...I've seen scaffolding around one building in particular.

Today, it was announced that NYS is investigating a landlord with a property in Crown Heights for violating the rent stabilization rules:

A preliminary audit of agency records showed that Wasserman frequently registered rents as $2,500, regardless of what the rents had been before, to allow the landlord to claim the units were no longer rent regulated, according to a press release sent out by the governor. The audit also showed that Wasserman may have deregulated apartments while simultaneously receiving a J-51 tax abatement, “which mandates that apartments remain rent-regulated,” said the statement.

There are definitely cheaper one bedrooms out there. They may be in an older building which don't include all the amenities, but definitely much more affordable. Calling this place affordable is a joke, and pretty much a lie.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally fine with market rate apartments. Call it as it is...

If they call it market rate, DeBlasio doesn't get to count it toward the totals he is working toward.

Also note that the city's ability to make a developer abide by low rents is in direct relation to how much they give the developer. In this instance, only $2.9M changed hands.

"The project was reinvigorated four years later thanks to a $2.9 million subsidy from the Housing Asset Renewal Program, or HARP, meant to create middle-income housing from stalled condo developments, the report said."

So basically they got $2.9m to call a market rate apartment affordable. It's not like they could have gotten much more than what they are putting them on the market for currently. Great business (on the developer's side).

I wouldn't apply. Go next door, next block, or around the corner and get a at least 25% discount. Not sure people are thinking long term, i.e., 10 years when it becomes affordable and they're already in.